If the facts have a liberal bias, wouldn't that make them terrorists instead of Nazis?

Only unquestioning acceptance of the beliefs of your parents and your current society can save us from the horrors of Nazism, etc.

I'm also waiting for Jonah to address Tony Zirkle, the GOP clown from Indiana who spoke before a Nazi group about the dangers of Jews and the tyrant king porn dragon.

As William Burroughs said (regarding the scientists at Los Alamos): "No job too dirty for a scientist." So this is what the Republican war on science is all about--saving us from the gas chamber!

It has been long argued by people smarter than either Stein or Goldberg that Social Darwinism is the bastard child of Darwinism, however, very little real science was involved in the birthing of Social Darwinism. Mostly the ideologues who originated and promoted Social Darwinism mouthed popular slogans.

I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do...

The last time Stein and his relatives saw scientists telling him what to do it was their doctor's telling them to exercise more and eat a healthy diet.

Sheesh. If he wants to play the "Nazis used it so it is BAD" game then he should include all the vocations the Nazi's used - medical, military, engineers, everything.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Because Nazi's researched rocketry to kill people we should have scrapped the space program?

Yeah, because nobody has ever killed anyone in the name of religion.

The last time I talked to a scientist, he said my blood sugar was a bit high and I should cut down on sweets, eat more fruit and vegetables, and exercise more. So does Ben not see doctors, or does he not consider them scientists?

"that's where science leads you."

Er... how about religon? It's still waaay ahead in the 'humans slaughtered' derby.

A rational look reveals that ethnic genocides have been around for thousands of years before 'science'. Only the tools have changed.

Because Nazi's researched rocketry to kill people we should have scrapped the space program?
Posted by: Tripp on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM.

NASA hired the same Nazis.

"That's where science leads you"

Wait, the alternative is what?

What is all this crap about medical doctors being scientists. While some medical doctors are scientists most are tradesmen and women.

Darwinism leads directly to Nazi-ism...

Whew! I was afraid there for a minute that maybe letting your country be taken over by a military-industrial complex might lead to something like that. But if we can just keep that nasty Darwin out of our schools, then we'll be all right. I am so relieved.

The alternative is witchcraft trials and pogroms based on scientifically unvalidated belief that Jews have poisoned wells. Well, that's one example, anyway.

Modern technology was used by Nazis to exterminate Jews, whereas, the Spanish Inquisition, definitely not a scientific undertaking, used ancient technology. Technology and science are NOT the same thing.

I read an interestin article about this at Scientific American. Six things Ben Stein doesnt want you to know

Ron Byers,
Well if you want to get technical about it, there weren't any scientists telling his relatives to go to the showers to get gassed.

Wow, that's so stupid its hard to even respond sinc my head's about to explode. But perhaps someone should remind him that scientists are the ones who told us to take the polio vaccine(along with many others), or penicillin, or to stop blood letting, or how to make movies like the piece of idiotic crap he just produced. Perhaps he'd like to undo the last couple thousand years of scientific progress and all the billions of lives it made possible because some assholes used garbage pseudo-science as an excuse to kill people during a war. Obviously if it hadn't been for the scientists and eugenics, WWII would never have happened and the jews never persecuted or gassed. Ugh. Is he insane, a liar or just a complete moron?

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

I think all our problems started when we launched those satellites into outer space. Things just haven't been the same since.

Los Angeles is out of first place in the American Lung Association's smoggy air contest. Pittsburgh is not amused:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08122/878162-114.stm

I like the fact that this story came out at the same time as Ben Stein's comments. As if we needed a reminder: it turns out that better science leads to.... healthier air, not gas chambers! Gee. How about that?

Anyway, from a Burger to an Angeleno: We're Number One!!!

Ben Stein is a socialist because he fears being gassed?

One might want to ask Stein how it is that non-scientist humanities majors ended up leading people to the gas chambers, while humming Beethoven and Schubert and quoting Schiller and Goethe to each other.

There is a very good case to be made that "scientism", a very different animal, has its downsides. The late Walker Percy, among others, is eloquent on this topic.

Percy was a Catholic and a scientist, of sorts, who accepted the evidence for Evolution .... and the Resurrection.

These subtleties escape Stein, who, after all, is a showman, not a deep thinker. He's a gameshow host, a droning high school teacher, and the Jim Cramer of economists. A mid-level Rennaissance man.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The Nazis murdered the Jews and so many others.

I wish nothing but the best for Stein, including some evolution in his thinking.

Anyone who equates science with Nazi rationalizations for murder doesn't understand either.

Gaza is the new death shower.

Sadr City is the new killing field.

The regions of genocidal mass murder today are the results of racist ideologies abetted by technology, just like the Holocaust was.

Science can only serve genocide when it becomes a servant to a political ideology. American psychologists have made their science available to service torture and American electrical engineers have used their scientific skills to destroy countless Iraqi families. The ideology glorifying American and Isreali exceptionalism is responsible for horrors that are beyond comprehension today, and Mr. Stein is incapable of recognizing these current horrors because of his denial of the value of the social sciences, which have explained how authoritarianism leads to totalitarianism and mass murder. I would suggest Mr. Stein's cognizant deficiencies are caused by ideology.

Kevin,

You have to be intellectually honest on this one. For my part, I do think Stein's words here are inappropriate. The comment comes off as saying science and particularly Darwinism leads directly to eugenics and nazism. This is a clumsy statement at best.

I don't think it is correct and I don't think it stands up to empirical scrutiny. In mathematical terms, Stein appears to be saying elevation of science is a necessary and sufficient condition for the horrors of nazism. I think that elevation of science as the highest goal is a necessary, but clearly not a sufficient condition to generate nazism. Otherwise we would not have the many atheists who live very moral lives and fight evil, and in the past helped to stamp out this scourge.

But you must face the fact that atheism takes off the guard rails that keep people from moving to a situation like support for eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, ethnic cleansing, etc.

The truth is that any atheist is declaring that there is no such thing as the transcendent. This leaves you with no grounding for your morals. The person is free to choose the basis for their moral positions. This basis can be majority opinion, self perceptions, heart feelings, so-called common sense, or so-called rationalism, or other arbitrary bases.

Most atheists I have talked to including those who regularly report on this site, are particularly blind to the arbitrariness of an atheist's morals. Because they have sanitized it with scholarly sounding philosophical terms delivered by people with Ph.D's, they actually believe that they have scientific basis for their morality. They only have a scientific basis for morality once they have chosen their goal. Science can not say their choice for the goal is good or bad, it can only help to logically predict the effects of that choice.

In my opinion, it is not that morals can't be rationally chosen by an atheist. It is that you can only deduce those morals, once you have a goal in place. Its that goal or optimization function which must be chosen in order to posit a rational morality that makes it dangerous.

Wrong goal, implies evil morality. This can be applied to all people atheist or theist.

For example the devotion to evolution as correct, plus the added goal or optimization function of the creation of a superior race of human beings would lead directly to the "science" practiced whole-heartedly by the nazis.

In a similar way, the goal of protecting the reputation of the Church at all costs, leads to the immoral decision to keep in place priests who molest children to cite a particularly gross infraction by theists.

It is my opinion, God has given enough evidence, that He provides us with the best goals (glorifying Him) and best morals (Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself). I have chosen my basis, and now am engaged in trying to live my life according to this choice.

Do not think that science gives you any better ability to choose a basis. It makes you more consistent and logical, but it gives no judgement on the basis. Indeed under the wrong teaching, it can quickly lead to a whole country of educated people to support vast evil. This is what happened with the nazis under the auspices of uncontrolled social Darwinism.

Well... I mean, sure, it sounds silly. But I remember hearing that the reason William Jennings Bryan was such a fierce opponent of teaching evolution in schools was because the theory was appropriated by Social Darwinists. As a fiery populist and advocate for the common man, he just couldn't let that happen.

(I'll cop right now to not remembering the specfics of where I heard that, and being short enough on time that I'm not going to Google for it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.)

It's not rational, but rationality is just one aspect of how we go about forming opinions, alliances, and principles. Stein's leap from teaching evolution to concentration camps seems longer, and the slope much more slippery, than WJB's. I don't respect his reasons or his reasoning particularly, but I can see how someone would think that much more was at stake than I think there is in teaching good science.

I mean shit, isn't that what Dr. Zaius was trying to tell us all along?

What about Jewish scientists? There are probably a few of them. They must be awfully conflicted.

Er... how about religon? It's still waaay ahead in the 'humans slaughtered' derby

I believe this statement is factually incorrect.

1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes. -Sciam.com

Today is officially the "National Day of Prayer."

A day when stupid people can bow their heads to an imaginary being and feel good about handing over control of their lives to something other than themselves.

I think all our problems started when we launched those satellites into outer space. Things just haven't been the same since.

I once rode with a cabdriver who told me the same thing, only nonironically. Also, he referred to all satellite launches as "moon shots" even though the large majority aren't going anywhere near the moon.

What is all this crap about medical doctors being scientists. While some medical doctors are scientists most are tradesmen and women.

Current medical practice and science have only a marginal relationship. Neither low fat diets nor weight loss for the slightly overweight have much scientific justification. (Exercise and fresh fruits and veggies are definitely good for you, though.)

The last time I talked to a scientist, he said my blood sugar was a bit high and I should cut down on sweets, eat more fruit and vegetables, and exercise more. So does Ben not see doctors, or does he not consider them scientists?The last time I talked to a scientist, he said my blood sugar was a bit high and I should cut down on sweets, eat more fruit and vegetables, and exercise more. So does Ben not see doctors, or does he not consider them scientists?

Physicians and scientists are overlapping sets, but the former is certainly not a subset of the latter. And, by and large, the physicians you are getting care from on a routine basis are no more scientists than your auto mechanic is.

Not, of course, that this justifies the Right's war against science, or Stein's personal contribution to it.

Why don't some of Congressmen Souder's constituents call and ask him for his opinion of Ben Stein, the holocaust and science causing it?

Souder was featured in several segments of the movie (http://souder.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4e950503-19b9-b4b1-12ef-526cda4c8585) and seems close to this issue. Does he want intelligent design because science kills people?

The root of Ben Stein's problem with science is that he is incapable of distinguishing between science, and total BS masquerading as science.

Science didn't kill Stein's relatives, or mine. (Other than: if you make people breathe poison gas, they will die, that is.) Hatred and paranoia, and the need for a locus for all that, killed them. A bunch of nonsensical pseudoscience was part of the justification for identifying Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. as the proper object for that hatred.

If Stein should have a problem with anyone on account of this, it shouldn't be Darwinists - it should be climate change denialists.

Unfortunately, Stein's too dumb to realize who is really the source of his problems. Kinda like the German people in the 1930s, come to think of it.

The person he should be worried about is...him.

What about Jewish scientists? There are probably a few of them. They must be awfully conflicted.

Nah. We're all self-loathing, dontcha know.

"Most atheists I have talked to including those who regularly report on this site, are particularly blind to the arbitrariness of an atheist's morals. Because they have sanitized it with scholarly sounding philosophical terms delivered by people with Ph.D's, they actually believe that they have scientific basis for their morality. They only have a scientific basis for morality once they have chosen their goal. Science can not say their choice for the goal is good or bad, it can only help to logically predict the effects of that choice." - John Hansen

Dang! There must be a design flaw in that chip I installed in John's brain and control remotely via satellite.

The root of Ben Stein's problem with science is that he is incapable of distinguishing between science, and total BS masquerading as science.

No, the root of Ben Stein's problem with science is that he's a committed devotee and long-time propagandist of the political Right, and science reveals the falsity of the things that the Right believes (more importantly, the things that the elites of the Right, like Stein, rely on the masses believing), and even more, that the approach to the world embedded in science leads people to question the dictates of authority, which is directly contrary to the ideology of the Right.

Stein is not an idiot, he is a committed ideologue and propagandist. Its not that he doesn't get science, its that he does get science and how it impacts what he wants people to believe.

"Because Nazi's researched rocketry to kill people we should have scrapped the space program?"

Actually, what Stein is saying is worse--if he followed his own logic here, he'd disavow physics. Cause look what it lead to, don'tcha know?

Science doesn't kill people,people kill people.

Science doesn't kill people, the righteous kill people.

John Hanson – Just for the record, most of the both the organized Catholic and Lutheran Churches, as well as most German Lutherans and Catholics, went along with the Nazis. That’s my problem with religious people – they claim a moral superiority which is just not backed up by their behavior. You might say the theory of religon based moral superiority fails when subjected to scientific test.

Jacob Bronowski, who himself lost family members in the concentration camps, said it better than I could ever hope to:

"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz, this is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible."

Yeah, Stein must be right. Because mass killings never occurred without gas chambers. I mean, using machetes and burning churches with people inside, that's not genocide.

Or wait, maybe it is. Maybe we should all be against fire and iron and steel, because the last time anyone used them against a Ruwandan, mass killings occurred.

What a tool.

And the study of economics, an unscientific parlor game to which Ben Stein's father apparently contributed, leads directly to Congolese kleptocracy.

It certainly seems like the US is headed in same direction as sub-Saharan Africa; I'm giving us five years until the Great Phoenix Penis Panic.

So ... let's see which of the following are the result of science, and then take a guess at which ones Stein has used:

penicillin ... electricity ... light bulbs ... cars ... planes ... radio ... television ... camera ... vaccines ... aspirin ... microwave ... cell phone ... nylon, rayon, teflon, etc. ... computer

Those are just things right off the top of my head that were all created by and with the help of **gasp** scientists!

So each time Stein uses any of those, he's helping the Nazis kill Jews. Or something.

I wonder how he feels about that?

John Hansen But you must face the fact that atheism takes off the guard rails

It's actually pretty sad if we need the fear of an imaginary supernatural being to keep us from misbehaving. Give me a break.

It's pretty silly to think that the Supreme Creator of the Universe is so vain and insecure that he needs me to spend my days glorifying Him.

The most dangerous idea in human history is the idea of One True God because if my god is the One True one and you don't worhship Him, or if you fail to do so in exactly the manner that He has prescribed (to me) obviously you must be punished.

The gnarled old oak Tree behind my house told me last night that John Hansen is an unbeliever who does not glorify the One True Tree. What is to be done with him?

Weenie,

Keep them remote control chips away from me!

Ben Stein, smug, repulsive jerk that he is, doesn't even understand that evolutionary biology makes no assertion as to how life on earth got here in the first place. It simply explains how it progressed after it did. BIG difference!

Thersites - I haven't got a chip in your brain, just your old oak Tree. It appears like the chip installed in your Tree is working just fine.

fafner - You might say the theory of religon based moral superiority fails when subjected to scientific test.

fafner - just curious. You make a hypothesis that "..the theory of religon based moral superiority fails when subjected to scientific test..".

Have you actually made a thorough investigation into the veracity of this statement, or are you just parroting what others have said previously? I think rational inquiry does promote the moral superiority of the Christian religion ( note: not just "religion' but Christianity ).

thersites -

I am curious. What is it that keeps you from morally misbehaving?

I think rational inquiry does promote the moral superiority of the Christian religion..

Which is why this righteous person supports the troops!

Hansen,

How morally superior were the Christian crusaders who took Jerusalem in 1099 and killed all the Jews and Moslems? Their fellow, but non-Roman, Christians were merely exiled from the city, if I recall.

thersites -

I did not ask you if you could cite a single event where people who were associated with the Christian label may have performed immoral actions, I asked you if you had done a thorough examination of the subject.

I for one have not. I have relied on the evidence presented by others who have researched this question and am quite confident that Christianity is a net force for moral goodness.

penicillin ... electricity ... light bulbs ... cars ... planes ... radio ... television ... camera ... vaccines ... aspirin ... microwave ... cell phone ... nylon, rayon, teflon, etc. ... computer

Reminds me of the sketch from Kentucky Fried Movie where everything made from zinc oxide disappears, to hilarious effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYeL3fowrHg

What is it that keeps you from morally misbehaving?

Just a simple sense that if we all behaved with some restraint the world would be a better place.

I don't say that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a bad rule. I just reject the notion that it takes the fear of God to make me follow that rule.

History is awash with blood spilled by people who believe that they're doing God's will.

thersites -

I am curious. What is it that keeps you from morally misbehaving?

Posted by: John Hansen on May 1, 2008

Oh, oh, oh, tooooooo easy!

I'll never be able to enjoy the beginning of Ferris Bueller's Day Off again.

I did not ask you if you could cite a single event...
I could cite thousands, if I didn't have a job to get back to. That was the first that came to mind. If you're going to say "those weren't real Christians, I'll paraphrase you what Lakota author Vine Deloria (God is Red, Custer Died for your Sins and several other fine bookds) said in response to that argument:
"What's the good of a religion that can't make its followers follow its teachings?"

Kevin cut off some of the transcript, which is even more troubling:

Stein: Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

It's not just evolution; science leads one to killing.

I am certain that Santa Claus is a net force for moral goodness. Let's teach him in science class!

John Hansen

I have no doubt that the teachings of Christ are a net good but I seriously doubt organized Christianity has been a net force for moral goodness. As I recall the Romans adopted Christianity as their state religion in order to more effectively maintain control of their empire--an empire that was never known for its moral clarity. The Christian church in the middle ages was more interested in political power and preserving the income stream achieved through selling indulgences than in advancing moral goodness. Moral goodness was never the prime motivator for the elite churchmen who launced crusades, reformation, counter reformation and the numerous purges of Jews. Untold thousands of women were burned as witches in the name of the organized church. Burning witches only ended 250 or so years ago. There is little doubt that had Christ been alive during the inquisition he would have been burned at the stake as a heretic.

While Christ was, without doubt, extraordinarily moral and there have been moral Christians through out the ages, organized Christianity itself has only rarely been a net force for moral goodness.

History is awash with blood spilled by people who believe that they're doing God's will.

Yes, but History is awash in much more blood spilled by people who believed "..Just a simple sense that if we all behaved with some restraint".

[edit]Which is why this righteous person supports the troops' mission!

Who cares what Goldberg has to say, John Derbyshire has already said what needs to be said about Expelled, Ben Stein, and enemies of knowledge like the Discovery Institute in A Blood Libel on Our Civilization.

It's nice to see conservatives telling their loons to pipe down once in a while. Stein appears to have allied himself with those who still celebrate Hitler, the haters of Western Civilization and tolerance, and appears to be completely unaware that he has done so. I'm sure the Taliban will give him an award for the work he has done to try to undermine the West.

History is awash with blood spilled by people who believe that they're doing God's will.

Yes, but unfortunately for your POV, History is awash with much more blood from people who were just doing their own misguided will.

I don't get it. Were the gas chamber attendants all scientists or something?

The present is awash with blood spilled by Christians and other belivers in a deity.

Yes, but unfortunately for your POV, History is awash with much more blood from people who were just doing their own misguided will thinking it was God's will.

fixed it for ya.

I don't get it. Were the gas chamber attendants all scientists or something?
Posted by: Luther on May 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Nah, but some of them were doctors. (Just kidding.)

While Christ was, without doubt, extraordinarily moral and there have been moral Christians through out the ages, organized Christianity itself has only rarely been a net force for moral goodness.

This makes for a good statement, but I doubt you have truly investigated this issue from both sides and come to this conclusion. Sounds more like a pronouncement to justify believing Christ was a good teacher, but not joining any Church.

Incidentally, would you count World Vision - an organization which profoundly effects the lives of suffering people everywhere as a part of 'Organized Religion'.

thersites - you mean the Russians who carried out Stalin's orders to purge millions, and killed many more than were killed in any religious event in history, thought they were doing God's will ?

Yes, but unfortunately for your POV, History is awash with much more blood from people who were just doing their own misguided will.

Where's the evidence for this statement?

I am curious. What is it that keeps you from morally misbehaving?

Oh good dog! Pick one of the following:

Respect for law and order

Parents who did their jobs diligently

Fear of retribution from law enforcement

Social mores

Emily Post

Feeding the cat

Mom would be disappointed in me and guilt me to death

If that isn't enough for you, stay the fuck away from me if you lose your faith and that is the only thing keeping your id in check.

Douchebag.

We are talking about a new good John. I'll count World Vision if you will count John Hagee and the crazy ass Christians who are trying to start a nuclear war between Islam and Israel to trigger the phony rapture and Armageddon

John Hansen,

I'm not arguing that atrocities aren't committed by atheists. I'm just arguing against the notion that Christianity is inherently morally superior to other religions/ideologies. It doesn't excuse the millions killed in the name of Jesus of a few million more were killed in the name of Stalin.

Anyway, if Stalinism isn't a form of fundamentalism, what the hell is?

What motivated Stalin's killers is the same thing that motivated Hitler's and W. Bush's killers, ideology. It does not matter if an ideology uses a deity or not to justify eliminating non-compliant people.

>"religon ahead in the 'humans slaughtered' derby
I believe this statement is factually incorrect"
-----------

Perhaps you're correct in absolute numbers of humans killed, but in deaths proportional to the total population of the time I think religon will give anything else quite a run for the title.

For example, a half million deaths relative to the world population of 1200-1400 [Catholic conquest of Europe] is a much bigger chunk than 6 million today [Cambodia]. So who killed 'more' do the numbers of bodies count... or the percentage kill rate?

I suppose the other issue would be the entanglement of religion with other political and ethnic issues.

Was the mass killing of native americans religious (kill the heathens), economic (take the land) or racial (kill the redskins).

...if a few million more...

Stupid atheistic keyboard.

that's where science leads you

Good thing he's safely stupid.
.

volatile compound --

you left out the biggie. Fear of Norman.

I have to admit I am pretty clueless about John Hagee, and what he does. How much unjust suffering has he caused? Is it comparable to Hitler, Stalin? If he is worthy of pointing out as evidence for Christianity being not good, you would think I would have heard about the terrible things he has done.

Note: I don't think merely pronouncing that you are of the opinion that one church is superior to another church, or one lifestyle is better than another lifestyle, makes someone evil, do you?

The social sciences have already done a great deal to explain why authoritarianism and totalitarianism exist and why they lead to mass murder. Those who deny the knowledge of science and accuse it of being the reason for events like the Holocaust prove the validity of the scientific explaination of how ideology drives massive inhumane behavior.

john hansen writes: "But you must face the fact that atheism takes off the guard rails that keep people from moving to a situation like support for eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, ethnic cleansing, etc."

speaking only for myself, my atheism has never led me to any of those things.

however, in the current religious cleanings sweepstakes we have jews vs. muslims, sunni vs. shia, etc etc

How much unjust suffering has he caused?

Why don't you ask the gay family members of those who follow him? Or do they deserve to suffer 'cuz they're fags?

cmdicely:
>"Physicians and scientists are overlapping sets, but the former is certainly not a subset of the latter. And, by and large, the physicians you are getting care from on a routine basis are no more scientists than your auto mechanic is."
--------

I must have missed the course requirements of auto mechanic trade school that included years of
Calculus, Physics, Biology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, Statistics
etc... /snark

For someone who isn't an atheist, you sure have it all figured out, don'tcha?

Wait, atheists have arbitrary morals? Aren't hyper-religious people telling us all the time that abortion is wrong because it ends a life, but ending a life is when somebody in authority tells you it's okay, like when you want to punish someone or during a war - even if you kill total innocents who get in the way when you're hunting the "bad guys"? That seems pretty arbitrary to me, and I don't recall "Thou shalt not kill" having any subclauses. I do recall seeing a lot of people who want to do something bad with the imprimatur of religious authority interpret various scriptures to their own benefit. I also don't think Ben Stein has thought his metaphor all the way through. I'm sure in the few moments leading up to their deaths, millions of victims cried out to God for help, and he was apparently busy elsewhere. So, for argument's sake, let's say science and scientists are evil. It doesn't seem to me that religion is the most effective way to counter them.

It does not matter if an ideology uses a deity or not to justify eliminating non-compliant people.

I not sure what you mean here. Is just subscribing to an ideology and using it to discriminate amongst different groups of people a bad thing?

Then you must be shocked then that college administrators are banding together and sticking to their ideology of evolution to eliminate the non-compliant professors who believe that design might have something to do with the present state of the world. Disgusting use of ideology isn't it.

Not shocked. Relieved.

John

I am not asserting the superiority of one doctrine over another. Most of the organized Christian churches and their members are more than capable of embracing evil. I recall learning in a history class that during the 16th century, a group of protestant sailors discovered the survivors of Spanish ship wreck near Florida. The protestant sailors were good and loyal members of the royal navy. After talking to the pathetic survivors to determine if they were Catholics, the English captain, on advice of his protestant Chaplain, took the Catholic survivors, including women and children, to an isolated spot on the Florida coast and slit their throats. A few of the Spanish survivors suddenly found protestantism and were spared. Sadly this story isn't isolated.

Religion allows someone like the Royal Navy captain to commit acts of murder without the slightest remorse. Obviously the person who doesn't believe in God the same way must be less than human.

Those darn college administrators. Next they'll be excluding those who don't believe in that gravity heresy.

Jersey Tomato-

The commandment is not "Thou shalt not kill". This, I have been told by people who know Hebrew, is a bad translation. The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder".

If you do not understand this distinction, or are unwilling to understand the difference between a soldier defending a nation, and someone committing murder, I am afraid I can not help you. You will stay willingly ignorant. Which is not a crime, its just bad for your intellectual development.

Religion allows someone like the Royal Navy captain to commit acts of murder without the slightest remorse.

Yes,

But it is also Religion that provides the guidelines which labels this act as evil.

How rich is this? A bible-bleater concerned for the intellectual development of someone smart enough to not believe in fairy tales!

I must have missed the course requirements of auto mechanic trade school that included years of Calculus, Physics, Biology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, Statistics etc...

Taking science coursework doesn't make you a scientist any more than taking a course about Christianity makes you a priest. Being a scientist is about what you do.

Most physicians don't do science; they use the results of science other people have done the same as mechanics and other tradesmen. Some physicians do science, but being a physician doesn't make you a scientist.

John

Murder means "kill without permission or legally recognized excuse" doesn't it?

Who says the guy giving permission has the actual authority to give permission to kill someone? When did God recognize excuses?

Religion that provides the guidelines which labels this act as evil.

Providing society hasn't decided these "others" need a good killin, of course.

Common sense also tells us these acts are evil, by the way.

Is just subscribing to an ideology and using it to discriminate amongst different groups of people a bad thing?

Is that what the Christian kidz are calling mass murder in the name of some idol (deity or otherwise) these days? "Discrimination"?

But it is also Religion that provides the guidelines which labels this act as evil.

That's right. Because before Christianity, or even before the Ten Commandments, no country had laws against murder.

Oh, they did?

John Hanson wrote: fafner - just curious. You make a hypothesis that "..the theory of religion based moral superiority fails when subjected to scientific test. Have you actually made a thorough investigation into the veracity of this statement."

Not a scientific study no, just a lifetime of observation and reading. You have to admit Christianity was the source and the driving force behind anti-Semitism. Likewise it was self avowed Christians who quoted the Bible to support slavery in the ante-bellum south and apartheid South Africa. As for the Nazis, check out “Theologians under Hitler� by Ericson – it’s not a pretty picture. Not saying individual Christians aren’t good people, just that as a group they don’t behave any better than the rest of us. As Gandhi said after his rational inquiry into Christianity: "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Next they'll be excluding those who don't believe in that gravity heresy

Yes, but you better hope they don't go after the ones who don't recognize satire.

You have to admit Christianity was the source and the driving force behind anti-Semitism.

I don't admit this. I suggest you read Telushkin and Prager. "Why the Jews?" to correct your misunderstandings.

Being a scientist is about what you do...Most physicians don't do science; they use the results of science other people have done the same as mechanics and other tradesmen. Some physicians do science, but being a physician doesn't make you a scientist.

I agree with Dicely on this point. (Yeah. I know. Shocking.) I have pointed out to many a swelled-head resident that came into the lab to get pissy with the med techs that it is our job to take the guesswork out of their jobs, and without us, they might as well revert to leeches and bleedings.

fafner1 -

I too have to admit I have not done a scientific study on the subject either. I do not think it is possible due to the polarized attitudes of people. My view is most formed by my view of contemporary society.

Most people do not think too deeply. My experience is that Christianity has the best hope of creating moral people.

This hardly means that being a Christian is a necessary and sufficient condition for being moral. Quite the contrary, the abuse of religion as a means for controlling people and getting them to commit mass evil is well documented.

I just feel that God has given us the best hope for taking sinful man, and getting him to behave better toward his fellow human being.

Yes, but you better hope they don't go after the ones who don't recognize satire.

There is, however, a big drive underway to take out the ones who think they're comedically gifted and, you know, aren't.

Then you must be shocked then that college administrators are banding together and sticking to their ideology of evolution to eliminate the non-compliant professors who believe that design might have something to do with the present state of the world.

And your proof of this is ... ? Or is that belief based on faith?

Religion is a creation of man in order to gain power over others, and to be used as a way to explain that which has yet to be explained.

The fact Hansen thinks one must be religious in order to be "moral" is proof of the first: One must or must not do X because God said so.

The second is proven by those who believe in creationism: It's intellectually easier (or, IMHO, lazy) to just ascribe life or evolution or lottery results on something undefined and unknowable, rather than putting forth the effort to actually find the truth.

There's a reason there have been -- and still are -- so many different religions. It's just that the type of religion depends on the culture that needs controlling and phenomena that needs explaining.

I agree with Dicely on this point. (Yeah. I know. Shocking.) I have pointed out to many a swelled-head resident that came into the lab to get pissy with the med techs that it is our job to take the guesswork out of their jobs, and without us, they might as well revert to leeches and bleedings.

Well, but you're agreeing with cmdicely so you can take a shot at physicians, while Dicely quite probably would be happy to extend his earlier statements about physicians to include techs. Or, now that I've said this, he may take the opposite view just to be Dicely.

Wait a sec Hansen.

Upthread you seemed mystified that someone could behave in a moral manner without religion. Now at 4:08 you seem to accept that maybe it isn't necessary to be religious to be moral, but your opinion is that Christianity provides a superior framework for morality, in spite of evidence to the contrary, starting with the crusades, moving through the inquisition, slavery, Nazi genocide, apartheid and the Serbian atrocities in the Balkans.

Cherry pick much?

Hansen,

Atheists claim a ... scientific basis for their morality.

How sweet of you to know what atheists believe.

As a (lapsed) physicist I trust you know what "orthogonal" means? Science is not opposite to religion or morality. Science is orthogonal to religion and morality.

There is no scientific basis for morality.

You will then claim that any morality not based on the Bible is arbitrary. You also claim your morality, based on the Bible, is NOT arbitrary.

Do you believe your Bible is inerrant? I hope not because that inerrancy of the Bible is easily disproved. Have you read the Bible? Surprisingly many authoritarian followers who claim that the Bible is the MOST important book in the world to them have not actually read it. Have you read the Bible, all of it? If so was it the Catholic version? It differs you know. I've read all of the King James Protestant Bible.

If you believe the Bible was "inspired" by God then you admit that the Bible has been changed over the years and thus while it started out perfect it is now imperfect. In this way the Bible is at least partially arbitrary.

Now we are arguing about degrees of arbitrariness.

In my personal observation the morals of atheists align much better with my own morals than do the morals of some so-called "Christians."

My personal morals are based on my understanding of Christ and my attempt to behave as Christ would.

Well, but you're agreeing with cmdicely so you can take a shot at physicians, while Dicely quite probably would be happy to extend his earlier statements about physicians to include techs.

Showing my age using 'med tech' - For over a decade Medical Technologists have been called Clinical Laboratory Scientists because that is what we do...scientific analysis and research.

But point taken:)

As a (lapsed) physicist...

One morning you woke up and just...had Doubts with a capital D, huh? Laws of motion just started to seem like something the power structure had invented to keep the people down? Kinetic molecular theory suddenly looked like the ravings of the superstitious? Causality was something you just couldn't trust and didn't need in your life anymore?

Yeah, I've been there. It's rough, man, that first moment of disillusionment.

Hansen,

My experience is that Christianity has the best hope of creating moral people.

You are displaying one of the characteristics of authoritarian followers. You are not arguing a consistent position. You are parroting sound bites that ultimately contradict each other.

Clearly you are much more comfortable attacking a strawman atheist than you are supporting your position. It is easier to throw mud than it is to defend one's own position.

If you wish to defend your position then please state it clearly and I'll respond.

For example, you speak of God. Is there one? How do you know God's will? You speak of Christianity but there are a million Christian sects. Which sect in particular do you mean? If you mention the Bible, please say which version.

If we don't agree on terms this will be futile.

For authoritarians everything, including science, must be bound up by traditional authority. Stein's perception is not very different from that of the orthodox Catholic Church or that of conservative evangelicals or even that of Edmund Burke in the years after the French Revolution. Science by its very materialist nature and rational approach to life brings the basic assumptions- the basic claims to authority- of tradition into question.

For authoritarians traditionalism prevents a decline in social order. It sets the bounds for political and social possibility. Even if the foundation of traditional authority is false it still has a political purpose. Because of this authoritarians have been at war with democracy, rationalism, liberalism, science and anything else that can upset the balance. In their minds traditional authoritarianism prevents radical authoritarianism like fascism or the Jacobin Reign of Terror before it. But history shows the traditional authorities, think of the Weimar Republic, tend to throw their support behind the authoritarian radicals.

Ben Stein's Christian allies in the fight against scientific rationalism are not the Church of England in 1800. They are themselves a radical minority seeking to establish a new authority in a decadent liberal society. This is just what the fascists proposed in Europe in the 1920's.

shortstop,

As a (lapsed) physicist...

Hey, nice to see you! I was referring to John Hansen the lapsed physicist.

I'm a physicist wannabe, hoping to be a "born again physicist" someday.

Tripp,

When you're born again as a physicist, what do they baptize you with? Do I even want to know?

bellumregio,

Oh yeah. Don't forget that authoritarians make excellent followers. They ask no questions, they work very hard, they donate much money, and they'll accept most any rationalization from their leaders.

If you want easy, strong, energetic disciplined political support the authoritarians are the best place to get it.

John Hansen wrote: "What is it that keeps you from morally misbehaving?"

That question is unanswerable unless you define specifically what you mean by "morally misbehaving".

I do my best to "behave" in ways that I believe will effectively realize my values. Someone else may have different values, or have similar values but different beliefs about what actions will effectively realize those values, and will therefore behave differently.

There will never be an agreement on which religion is the most moral. That is because there is no "standard" for morality - it is, in effect, something that someone associates with their particular values.

SecAn is right by saying someone may have different values, or similar vcalues but different beliefs about what actions....

Now with regard to the statement that science leads to killing ..... You folks all better watch out, I might just sneak up behind you and .... poof, hit you with a mess o' photons.

Sheesh, I couldn't even get myself to dissect the rat in biology class. And it was already dead.

John Hansen wrote: "What is it that keeps you from morally misbehaving?"

I think this is why authoritarians & theists have so much overlap. They can't understand morality or meaning deriving from anything other than authority. But that just moves the problem to a black box one level up.

They never ask the obvious question: why is this "god" virtual-alpha-male so concerned about the rules followed by hairless apes, and their submission to Him? Why collect and sort our little souls to be put into storage or made to suffer forever? Is it like how some people are obsessed with hockey cards? Does He get to level-up in a game if he gets to 1 billion good ones? Is God a narcissistic 10 year old with OCD, fear of sex, and a problem with pigs?

Living things generate meaning. Human beings generate values. It's your role as a human being.

We're all going to die, all made up of bits from our parents and culture, and so are not really that "special" despite what our parents/teachers told us, so rationally your larger "self" is the sphere of culture and humanity that you're arose out of. A sane system of values and morality will be self-consistent and have long term survival value for life and culture; so that tends to involve a lot of "enlightened self-interest" behavior.

There is no other source of meaning or values in the universe. Deal with it.

optical weenie,

Sheesh, I couldn't even get myself to dissect the rat in biology class. And it was already dead.

You had rats?! All we had were worms. Granted that the farther an animal is from us on the evolutionary tree the less squeemish we are about it but I would have NO trouble dissecting a rat.

I got to condition rats in college. It helped me later on to raise my children. Positive reinforcement at semi-random intervals works every time. The kids didn't like the meal pellets though.

I kid, I kid.

Irony alert:

Self-styled Christian moralist and frequent Bush Administration apologist John Hansen began his rants by admonishing Kevin to be intellectually honest.

What it boils down to, Hansen, is that you believe your brand of Christianity to be the one true religion, you believe yourself to be a moral person, you believe, while admitting you don't really have evidence, that atheists are responsible for more atrocities and suffering than Christians -- the Soviet Union lasted less than a hundred years, bub, and Stalin less than that. Shall we discuss the Dark Ages? How about the inquisition? The religious wars of Europe? Martin Luther's overt anti-Semitism? -- and, most of all, you believe in a hackneyed and false portrayal of atheists, Mr. Intellectual Honesty.

I, for one, don't need fear of an imaginary bearded sky pixie to convince me to love my wife and children or that acting in a socially acceptable manner is a Good Thing.

By the way, Hansen, Buddhism produces moral people without requiring a belief in God or His eternal punishment at all.

Self-righteous jackass.

John Hansen:

It is my opinion, God has given enough evidence, that He provides us with the best goals (glorifying Him) and best morals (Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself). I have chosen my basis, and now am engaged in trying to live my life according to this choice.

You are correct that a Christian's goal, as communicated by the New Testament, is to glorify God on earth with the goal of going to heaven and glorifying him there eternally. According to Jesus, life on earth is merely the necessary prelude to this state. If you actually prioritize your life this way, congratulations.

You are a member of very, very elite and tiny group. You don't make an effort to be comfortable, much less indulged. You own nothing more than you need to be healthy, and to have time to pray and do good to others. If someone strikes you on one cheek, you turn the other cheek to him. If someone takes your coat, you don't stop him from taking your shirt. If you have anything more than what you need to survive, you give it to anyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, you do not demand it back.

If you have children, you make it clear to them always that their salvation is the only important thing to you, which they will earn by worshipping God and doing good to others. You teach them that a college education, marketable skills, athleticism, and beauty are more likely to lead to damnation than good things. Because woe to the rich, for they have already received their comfort, and woe to those who are well fed now, for they will go hungry. Woe to those who laugh now, for they will mourn and weep.

I don't mean that you are perfect and never slip. I merely mean that you organize your life according to the principles that you should lay up treasures in heaven rather than on earth, and that whatsoever you do to the criminals, poor, insane, foolish, uneducated and stupid, you do to Jesus.

I have never personally met a Christian who actually puts salvation first in anything other than lip service. It never crosses the mind of most Christians that Jesus would frown on killing in the defense of private property. They n